How better to while away the doldrums of winter than by training for a springtime New York to DC cycling adventure?

Climate Counts is once again honored to be a beneficiary of TWO amazing climate rides – Climate Ride NYC to DC (May 19 - 23) and Climate Ride California (September 9 - 13).

This year, not only is it possible to donate and commit to fundraising on behalf of your favorite environmental organizations, but you can also sign up to RIDE for the Climate Counts Team.

For more details on how you can help support Climate Counts, contact project director Mike Bellamente at 603.862.0121 or mbellamente@climatecounts.org.

Thank you for in advance for supporting the cause!

-The Climate Counts Team

In the lead up to the GOP New Hampshire primary, one thing has become abundantly clear:  climate change has few friends in this field of candidates.

So visibly absent is the subject of climate change from ongoing stump speeches that New Hampshire scientists –representing institutions such as the University of New Hampshire and Dartmouth–have banded together in a plea for republican candidates to, at the very least, accept the reality of shifting global temperatures.

In reviewing the front-running republican websites, not one even mentions climate change, let alone sets out a plan to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) we emit as a nation (U.S. being the second largest emitter of GHGs worldwide).

This signals a prime opportunity for leading-edge U.S. corporations to ordain themselves as the voice of reason.   While iconic symbols of American industry (IBM, Bank of America, Nike, and Levi’s for starters) are taking progressive action on climate change, candidates who purport themselves as 21^st century businessmen refuse to even acknowledge the science of humanity’s biggest challenge.  This leaves one to wonder just how much of a lagging indicator politicians truly are to the status quo.

Major corporations are no longer just playing to the green crowd because of its popularity.  Climate change is being addressed at the highest levels of business because it poses an immediate risk to operations, supply chains and future investments.  A look at the 2011 Carbon Disclosure Project Global 500 report reveals that 85% of respondents to last year’s survey reported business risks associated with climate change.

So why isn’t there more coordinated vocalization from the private sector demanding that presidential candidates address the issue?

To be sure, groups such as Ceres’ Businesses for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) are valiantly attempting to move the needle on Capitol Hill, but perhaps it is time to bring corporate activism to the level of campaign contributions.  Since the U.S. Supreme Court removed the ceiling in 2010 on the amount corporations are legally allowed to spend on campaign donations, the next logical step, it would seem, is for businesses affected by climate change risk to invest in presidential candidates who reflect those interests.

It is well understood that this country is in need of an economic kick-start, and that any plans for job creation will appeal equally to the left, the right and the coveted independent swing vote in this year’s election.   What has become less clear, however, is why the quest for clean energy and a low-carbon future has become such a source of vitriol for the conservative agenda.

Climate change is no longer an issue of activism or alarmism.  It is a simple fact that deserves the attention of anyone vying for the position of Commander in Chief.

Mike Bellamente is the project director of Climate Counts, a New Hampshire-based nonprofit that annually ranks major corporations on their climate leadership.

Do you crave a fun, easy way to adopt healthy green choices and share your accomplishments with friends and colleagues?

Practically Green is a unique way for people to set targets for themselves and achieve those targets through point-based actions (e.g. 50 points for installing CFL bulbs in your home). Users can also recommend and rate products, and compare progress.

Climate Counts has teamed up with Practically Green to give our supporters the encouragement they need to eat local and organic, to adopt climate-minded spending habits, and to embrace energy-efficient home improvements such as window replacements and installing attic insulation.

We’ve also created a conscious consumer badge on Practically Green that rewards you for modifying your daily routine to make it more eco-minded, including supporting corporations that are committed to reducing their climate impact. How you travel, shop, eat, and more can drastically reduce your footprint and inspire your friends to do the same.

Take the quiz on Practically Green today!

Enjoy,

Practically Green and

The Climate Counts Team

One of the most interesting aspects of working in the field of corporate climate responsibility (CCR) is how the debates surrounding climate are generally grounded in reality.  In politics, the conversation is still too often focused on whether or not climate change is real, while in the business world–even within the energy sector–debate is more often centered on questions related to climate risk, reward and return on investment.

A perfect example of the issues facing corporations arose out of a debate that took place during the COMMIT! Forum earlier this month in New York City.  Dr. Aneel Karnani, PhD at the University of Michigan, and Gerald Sullivan, President of the Vice Fund, argued that companies expending resources on corporate responsibility and sustainability destroy economic value.  Defending corporate responsibility were Paul Herman, CEO of HIP investors and Dr. Vinay Nair, PhD at Columbia Business School, who offered empirical insight on how companies that invest in environmental and social initiatives typically perform better in the market than industry averages.

For Climate Counts, an organization founded on the idea that corporations need to be seen as allies in addressing climate change, it was like being on trial.  It was a fascinating conversation, but it also seemed to miss the point.

To us it has always been clear that corporations, like consumers, have a vital role to play in protecting people and the planet.  Following another summer with record breaking heat, droughts, storms and flooding, it is clear that all members of society-corporations included-have an obligation to be a part of the climate solution.

Although it would be altruistic to think that companies would put sustainability above profit, our experience has shown that actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can often benefit the bottom line as well.

How?

-          The customer is always right. The average consumer is becoming increasingly aware of global warming and the corresponding impacts on weather patterns, agriculture and human health. It may not be enough to force political action yet, but it’s much too large a segment of the population to ignore as a company. The growth of corporate sustainability ratings and sustainability indexes enable consumers to more readily identify which companies are adopting comprehensive approaches to sustainability, and which are simply using “green” as fortuitous marketing fodder.  In essence, the customer is still king, and environmentalism is fast becoming the mainstream for consumer purchasing.  Companies that fail to adapt will soon find themselves vulnerable to eroding market share.

-          CCR investments save money. As Dr. Karnani was quick to point out during the debate, corporate commitment to increasing operational efficiency, reducing waste and engaging employees are all elements of good business, whether it’s called corporate social responsibility or not.  Similarly, assessing and managing risks associated with climate change is also an element of good business.  In 2010, Levi Strauss & Company acknowledged in their Carbon Disclosure Project survey that 95% of their products are made from cotton which is sourced from over 110 different countries, some of which are starting to feel the impacts of climate change.  Realizing this risk and adapting to it has not only made Levi’s a pioneer in sustainable cotton harvesting and responsible water management, but it has provided a way for the company to better manage long-term costs associated with a primary input material. More simply put, Levi’s approach to climate leadership in this case benefits not only the environment, but also their long term ability to remain profitable.

-          Long-term brand protection is key.  Brand image can take years to develop and hours to destroy, as was evidenced by BP’s Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico last year.  As sustainable business practices become the norm across industry sectors, companies are increasingly enticed to adopt eco-marketing strategies without having internal sustainability goals to support them.  Consumers react well to companies on the leading edge of innovation, but tend to respond negatively to false advertising and being duped into something they thought to be true.  When New Scientist released a report last year on brand perception, it was of little surprise that some companies were perceived to be strong environmental performers, but actually weren’t.  Del Monte for example was ranked 2^nd out of 22 companies in ‘green’ perception, while ranking dead last in actual environmental performance.  As consumer and investor demand continues to grow for environmental reporting and operational transparency, companies that exhibit a false front to being green risk exposure and backlash that can drastically affect their brand integrity.

All three points are critical to understanding that CCR investments are just that-investments-and they pay dividends in increased efficiency, brand value and customer connection.

Perhaps this is why most major corporations have moved onto the bigger and more interesting questions, such as: how can our company best measure its corporate climate impact?  What are the best strategies for reducing that impact? How should our corporation be supportive of climate and energy policy? How can our company best disclose and communicate corporate actions to our customers?

-Mike Bellamente, Project Director - Climate Counts

The following was originally posted by Michael Sadowski, VP of SustainAbility.  To view the original blog-post, click here.

A question and answer with Wood Turner and Mike Bellamente of Climate Counts, one of the ratings profiled in SustainAbility’s Rate the Raters research series.

1) Looking at the Phase Four paper of Rate the Raters, what resonates most with you?

Now that corporate sustainability ratings have been around awhile, SustainAbility’s Rate the Raters project helps us gauge what the future holds. The phase four paper establishes that rating standards will require greater differentiation moving forward, and that raters will need to distance themselves from the overly saturated data compilation side of the business in order to remain competitive. We at Climate Counts certainly believe this to be true; indeed, if our goal is to point the business community in the direction of climate change awareness and leadership, it should be done with clarity and efficiency, not complexity and duplication.

The report also touches on a number of themes to which no rating organization is immune, including financial viability, consistency, transparency and strategic focus. Profiling the industry on these topics allows organizations like ours to recognize how we stand in relation to the competition. This is never a bad thing. In fact, identifying where the ratings world has been and where it’s going is paramount to our continued success as an organization. Just as the companies we rate are beholden to their customers and shareholders, we too need to observe and adapt to the changes in the marketplace.

As RTR Phase Four suggests, “almost every rating system has at its core a mission to help businesses inch toward sustainability.” Big business has the reach, resources and marketing dollars to make it understood that climate change is a real issue facing today’s generations, more so than all the nonprofit climate advocacy groups combined. Having a collective partnership with raters and industry sectors alike allows for greater idea generation and less finger pointing when it comes to achieving results toward a healthier environment and a healthier, more efficient economy.

2) What makes you uncomfortable/uneasy?

We’re not sure uncomfortable is the right word, but it is interesting to see that so few raters (including CC) have been able to create a financially viable model for what is seemingly bulletproof consumer demand. As SustainAbility asserts: “Companies are linking executive compensation to performance on ratings. Asset managers are leveraging sustainability ratings and research in their investment decision making.” With indicators like this illustrating the degree to which companies are taking corporate responsibility ratings seriously, it is alarming to think how few have been able to arrive at a model that institutionalizes rating systems with consumers in a way that can be self-sustaining.

Inherent in a credible rating system that shows great promise and value, it seems, is the paradox that any judge of others would be morally compromised by generating revenue through the ratings process. Somehow, this needs to change, and hopefully Climate Counts can be a catalyst.

3) In the Washington DC workshop, we had a vigorous conversation about the need for the ratings agenda to take a closer look at quality and standards. Yet you shared perhaps a different slant on this – can you elaborate here?

Wood’s quote from the workshop:

“Rather than perseverating over the need for common criteria, quality standards, etc., we (raters, companies, consultants and others) should join together to dramatically boost demand for ratings. Greater demand will help resolve many of the issues we’re talking about today.”

If the quality of a rating standard is derived from the rating’s simplicity, transparency and consistency, we think it is those ratings that will continue to be marketable regardless of the “common criteria” that exist across multiple rating systems. Our work as raters is only as important as the companies and consumers who pay attention to them. Put another way, whether the value our industry provides is perceived or actual, companies will only continue allocating resources to sustainability if it remains in some way relevant to their bottom line. At Climate Counts, we would like to think that as awareness of climate change grows, our rating systems will become more, not less, important. That said, we continue to operate in an ever-evolving discipline that demands constant attention to the interests of consumers and businesses alike.

In many ways, our goals as a rating organization run parallel to those of the companies we rate. If Company A has gone to great lengths to reduce their carbon footprint and report their successes, they want to let customers know this. What better way to publicize your achievements than by being rated ahead of a competitor through an independent, credible third-party ranking system. Climate Counts wants to be THE ranking system that companies consider especially relevant and useful, not just the ones who score well in our rating system.

4) You also have a practical view on whether and how raters can also be consultants. Can you explain?

As with the ratings themselves, transparency is at the heart of whether a ratings organization can make the successful leap into the role of advisor or consultant. The goal is to provide outward-facing, clearly defined and delineated operational guidelines that can withstand the most profound levels of scrutiny, guidelines that adhere to the mission of the organization while maintaining operational integrity.

At Climate Counts, we perform annual rankings of 150 of the world’s largest companies based on their efforts to measure, reduce and report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in addition to whether they take a formal stance in support of climate change legislation. Because there are several companies that recognize the value of this service, but don’t represent one of the 150 largest companies, we have developed the Industry Innovators (I2) program. Our I2 service offering allows businesses to: 1) employ our industry-proven ratings criteria to complete self-assessments; 2) engage with our project team directly to outline a plan for improved performance; 3) access membership privileges such as marketing assistance, peer networking and consumer-facing media opportunities.

We accomplish the balance between our annual Climate Counts rating process and our revenue-generating I2 program through full disclosure of our rating methodologies, use of publicly reported information in our evaluations and a set of strict internal governance procedures to avoid conflicts of interest.

Earth Day is coming, and with it, hours and hours of “green” television programming and print media coverage. People who hardly give the environment a thought all year will be “Green Watching” programs – and advertisements – about how to be more environmentally responsible. In the past, I always thought of this heightened awareness as a good thing. The added programming draws broader attention to serious environmental problems like the climate crisis, and I firmly believe an educated public is critical to generating strong climate action throughout society.

However this Earth Day I think it’s important to ask: At what point does “Green Watching” become a form of greenwashing? Should media companies lead by example on corporate climate and environmental action or because of their importance in educating the public is talk enough?

Green Watching can get complicated.

Obviously, media companies (like all companies) are in business to make money. In 2009, the six major media companies Climate Counts scored brought in well over $300 billion dollars in revenue. It’s safe to assume that making money is somewhere behind the creation of all Earth Day, Week, and Month programming; if it was all altruism, there wouldn’t be hours of mostly-mindless commercials. Second, I think we all understand that a network’s brand is a critical part of how it builds an audience (and increases ad revenue). Network brands are becoming increasingly important as people have more information and entertainment options. A network that does environmental programming during Earth Week is trying to brand itself in a certain way.  Yet even if the motivation is profit and the strength of a brand, media companies do have a big impact on both the political debate and in setting cultural and societal norms.

So, how can we as consumers be informed Green Watchers?

The first is to know what commitment these companies have made to addressing climate change. But the facts will blow your mind.

Based on our latest round of scoring (released in November 2009), notoriously conservative News Corporation was near the top of green-committed media companies, with 68 points out of a possible 100. Notoriously hip Viacom (the parent of MTV, BET, Comedy Central, and VH1), however, was not only among the lowest in the media sector with just  three points, but among the lowest of nearly 150 companies scored in 16 major sectors.

You read that right. The company that owns Fox News and the Wall Street Journal is doing more to reduce its own climate impact than the company that is watched by the young, edgy, and culturally dialed-in. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity work for the company doing more on the corporate side to address the climate crisis than the company that gives John Stewart and Stephen Colbert their megaphones. And perhaps what’s most striking is how little improvement Viacom and other low-scoring media companies like CBS and Time Warner have shown in the more than three years since Climate Counts began tracking their performance.

However, in terms of influencing political debates, News Corporation has done as much as anyone to confuse the public on the climate crisis, while Viacom programs like “The Daily Show” and CBS programs like Letterman’s “Late Show” have done much to educate viewers on the dangers of climate change.

But wait, there’s more.

While some of its shows may add depth to the public conversation about climate change, CBS launched an entire “Green Campaign” with the tag line “putting our green where it counts” to do nothing more than promote its Emmy nominated shows. With a score of 13 on our most recent scorecard, CBS has not demonstrated action to match its programming or its self promotion.

Time Warner, known best for news and entertainment divisions like CNN, Time Magazine, and HBO, earns less than a third of the points available on the Climate Counts scorecard for making real efforts to reduce climate pollution. And what is the contribution of media companies to climate change? Let’s start with the sheer number of people who work for or contract with these companies. Indeed, whole cities exist to support the media business. And then consider the energy their equipment, data centers, and facilities use. They’re not refining oil or mining coal, but their impact is not insignificant.

Even Disney, parent company of ABC, ESPN, Pixar and others, while relatively better overall than most of its competitors (47 out of 100 points, up 22 from the previous year), still has a very low score on its efforts to measure its climate pollution (one of the areas we track) and to take responsibility for its enormous supply chain, a massive sphere of influence.

The truth is that “Green Watching” actually isn’t that complicated. People just need to know where these companies stand in all areas of their business—and urge them to improve. If you’re interested in becoming a more active and informed Green Watcher, follow Climate Counts’ new “Green Watching” campaign on Facebook and Twitter.  Next week on and around Earth Day, when all eyes are on the environmental programming of major media companies, help us urge big media companies to talk the talk and walk the walk.

Or are you just going to watch?

Wood Turner is the executive director of the non-profit organization Climate Counts.

Take a look at the Executive Director of Climate Counts explain the importance of green business on NBC.

To learn more about the Industry Innovators Program visit: i2.climatecounts.org

Do toy manufacturers and kids equipment companies care about our children’s future? Based on new research just released by my organization, Climate Counts, the answer is no. I’m being overly harsh to make a point—climate change is toxic to our children’s future and is a safety issue as important as any we deal with as parents.

I believe there is no greater threat to my children’s future than the climate crisis, and I shudder to think about what their lives will be like if we all don’t start doing all we can to reducing the impact we have on carbon pollution now.  We’ve been evaluating corporate action on climate change for over two years now, and we simply haven’t seen the kind of widespread consumer awakening on this issue that’s going to be necessary to move companies to take urgent action.

Since our launch in 2007, we have scored 106 companies across 13 different sectors, and the sector we released yesterday — the toy and children’s equipment sector — scored the absolute lowest. None of this sector’s companies scored greater than 40 (out of 100), and eight companies scored zero.

Certainly, the moms, dads, aunts, uncles and grandparents who purchase most of the toys and kids equipment aren’t going to stand idly by and let their choices continue to support companies that are turning a blind eye to this issue. Perhaps some of these low scoring companies are tackling other issues that parents are concerned about. Shouldn’t they be able to also address the climate crisis?

As a parent, I’m constantly being targeted by child equipment companies with new and safer models to buy (And I must say I’m always shocked by news that the car seats I comfortably used four years ago for my older kids are no longer safe today for my youngest! The steady flow of parents’ dollars to these companies is mind-boggling.). Safety is the primary selling point for the companies that make things like car seats, strollers, high chairs, and the like—with good reason, safety comes first when it comes to your kids. But the fact that these companies seem so concerned about some of the issues that consumers have raised is exactly the reason why I was so surprised when it became clear that the climate actions for the sector were so limited and, as a result, the climate scores for the sector’s companies were so dismal.

Shouldn’t solving the climate crisis be considered a safety issue for our kids?

At Climate Counts we look at, and score, what companies themselves are doing to address the climate crisis. The companies are scored on a 0-to-100 point scale based on 22 criteria that measure companies’ efforts to assess their own climate footprint, reduce their emissions, support (or block) progress on major climate legislation, and communicate their efforts clearly and comprehensively to consumers.  You can view the detailed scores [http://www.climatecounts.org/scorecard_sectors.php?id=28].

We found that most of the big companies in the sector weren’t taking even the most basic step of measuring their own climate impact—but we do know there is innovation in the sector. Scores of smaller toy and children’s equipment makers are investing in green advances. Imagine if the largest companies – Mattel, Hasbro, Lego, Rubbermaid, Evenflo, Chicco, and more – were doing the same. There would be an extraordinary opportunity to educate consumers on the issue and build a long-term and lucrative relationship with the families who recognize that they must support companies that care about climate change.

As parents and consumers, we have the power to do something about the climate crisis. Most consumers by now understand that there are simple things we can do to reduce our own carbon footprint, many of us also understand our power to influence elected officials to pass strong climate policy—but we also have the power to influence companies to take action to reduce their climate impact.

We’ve found that companies are very responsive to consumers and I have no doubt that if these companies hear from parents and consumers that climate is a safety issue—they will respond by taking action.  Each of the toy and children’s equipment companies we have scored has its own page on our site, and each of those pages has a way that you can send e-mail directly to the company to let them know how you feel – positively or negatively – about their Climate Counts score. Make your voice heard. It makes a difference.

This was our first time scoring this sector, so they deserve some time to get their act together and the time to hear from consumers. We’ll score them next year again and expect to see some real improvement.

The reports are in – the physical, social and economic impacts of global warming affect women more than men. So it’s appropriate that women are also in a position to have the greatest impact in fighting climate change. With the US presidential election looming, women represent a majority of those who will be going to the polls. With growing numbers in leading non-profit and corporate jobs, women continue to shake and steer the course of the world. And as the primary consumers of our society, the dollars they spend mean a lot. Climate Counts is pleased to feature the following guest post from the Women’s Environment & Development Organization (courtesy of our friends at the Communications Consortium Media Center), and we hope you appreciate their perspective as much as we do.

By June Zeitlin, Executive Director, Women’s Environment & Development Organization

The more we experience the effects of climate change, the clearer it becomes that everyone on the planet has a huge stake in what we decide to do now. That is why it is appalling that women are still being overlooked as key to the solution.

When storms and mudslides devastate a neighborhood, women shoulder most of the cleanup, stay home from work or school the most and take care of the injured. When drought hits the developing world, it is women whose crops and animals suffer most, as they produce most of the food in Africa and Asia. Women are the ones who risk assault to go further and further in search of water and firewood.

Women, in short, are the most affected by the disruptions of climate change. But women also have the most experience in coping. Women drive less, consume less and have smaller carbon footprints than men. Women’s initiatives are creating green jobs and slowing environmental damage worldwide. Yet women are generally left out of policy deliberations on what to do about global warming.

It is time for this to change. Next year’s new Congress will consider legislation to mandate new greenhouse gas emission standards and invest in measures to grow a greener U.S. economy. Election season offers politicians the chance to stand out from their opponents by recognizing women’s centrality on this issue and pledging to involve them in its solution. So far, it isn’t happening.

Women produce 65 percent of all the food in Asia and 75 percent of it in sub-Saharan Africa. Erratic weather means they must spend more time farming and gathering food, which leaves less time for education, outside work, personal and family life. The result: ill health, hunger, homelessness, unemployment, forced migration and conflict. But in Kenya, for example, Wangari Maathai started the Greenbelt Movement, urging women to be leaders in planting trees to prevent erosion and stand up for democracy. For this she won the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize.

In Suriname, no one listened when women pointed out that a local river’s annual floods were getting worse and that perhaps the village should relocate to higher ground. It was wiped out the following year. When drought hit Micronesia, women were digging wells and creating new water sources long before the government decided what it could do. When Hurricane Mitch killed thousands in Central America in 1998, no one died in the Honduran town of La Masica because women there participated equally with men in all relief operations, went on rescue missions, rehabilitated local infrastructure, distributed food and took over the task, from men, of monitoring the early-warning system for disasters.

Women are a majority of the world’s poor, and the poor by definition live in substandard housing in marginal areas prone to drought, floods or resource shortages. Up to 70 percent of those killed in the 2004 Asian tsunami were women. In Bangladesh, the 1991 cyclone and flood killed 71 of every 1,000 women, compared to 15 of every 1,000 men. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, women forced into overcrowded housing suffered high rates of sexual abuse, while lack of child care facilities has cost many their jobs and health insurance. Contemplating the slow government response, Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton sponsored a resolution at the 2007 national lieutenant governors’ conference calling on officials to commit to action in their states against climate change.

Political candidates should take note that women are both those most affected by climate change worldwide and leaders in dealing with it. At the moment, the debate focuses on technical and economic issues. True, those are crucial: an effective policy should require emission cuts of 25 to 40 percent by 2020, suspend new coal plants and end U.S. fossil fuel dependence through incentives for energy efficiency and renewable resource production.

It should also require research on gender-specific patterns of resource use, vulnerability and coping mechanisms. It should call for new data collection about every proposal’s effects on women, and mandate involvement by women and gender experts in preparing U.S. policy and contributions to international discussions. It should recognize that success of the technical fixes will depend on the ways that women use natural and economic resources and the way they react to policy initiatives.

The planet’s future is at stake in the global warming debate, no question about it. Women are weighing in with reports and suggestions from the field where they know the terrain. It’s time for their voices to be heard and heeded.

June Zeitlin is the executive director of the Women’s Environment & Development Organization (WEDO). Founded in 1991, WEDO is an international organization that advocates for women’s equality in global policy.

Estimates suggest there are upwards of 300,000 fast food restaurants in the United States, one for approximately every 101 Americans. My guess is that the actual number of restaurants changes daily. In a world with “billions and billions served,” how could we be more precise than “thousands and thousands serving”? That’s not to mention franchises popping up of every shape and size and even the specter of venerable institutions in the industry being absorbed by yesterday’s also-rans and what that will mean for consumers.

In a general sense, we know what fast food means for American consumers. Quite simply, it’s convenience and affordability. In a culture perpetually on the run, who has time to cook balanced, natural meals at home? And with gas prizes pounding the wallets of families in “forced marriages” with their cars (as Colin Beavan of the blog No Impact Man says), who wants to spend more than a few bucks on something as important as food? Our self-imposed rat-race has driven millions of us into the waiting arms of the highly profitable fast-food industry.

Unfortunately, the cost of that now almost 80-year embrace with the drive-thru far exceeds what consumers can buy from the value menu. The industry has long been criticized for its impact on national health care by contributing to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and the effects of childhood obesity. It’s been the target of animal-rights advocates and, more recently, forest advocacy organizations because of its packaging impacts. And now, it’s become increasingly clear that the industry is a laggard on global climate change. In our annual Climate Counts scores of well-known consumer companies on their commitment to addressing climate change, four out of six companies (Yum! Brands, Burger King, Darden Restaurants, and Wendy’s) in the food services sector made no improvements in their scores from 2007 to 2008. That’s in a year when 84% of the companies we scored actually improved their scores, some significantly. It adds insult to injury when you consider that those four companies earned scores of one point or even zero points on a 100 point scale (100 being the highest possible score) for two years running. (Two other food services companies, Starbucks and McDonald’s, score significantly higher than the other four but much lower than many other companies we’ve investigated.)

What do the scores mean? They mean these companies are not measuring their climate impact, they’re not substantively and comprehensively working to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, they’re not supporting good public policy on climate, and they’re not being open and transparent with consumers about any real commitment to making climate actions a part of long-term business strategy. These companies spend tens of billions of dollars every year on energy, and by some estimates, as much as 80% of that energy is wasted through outmoded buildings and restaurants and inefficient food storage. Their impact on climate and our communities is all too clear.

Suddenly, convenient and cheap food is not so easy and cheap anymore. Inefficient use of energy affects corporate bottom lines – and it hits consumers. But that’s just the beginning. A report released in May from Tufts University and the Natural Resources Defense Council suggests that lack of action on climate will eventually cost our economy $3.8 trillion a year. What’s truly astonishing is the significant amounts of that money that could be saved by businesses and families with a little forward-thinking and some thoughtful investment. But the time for this action is of the essence.

This summer, Climate Counts is circulating a petition designed to send a clear message to the fast- food industry that it’s time to get serious about climate change. Through our partnerships with artists like Jack Johnson and organizations like the Hip Hop Caucus, we’re asking people around the country to use their mobile phones to get active on climate change by signing our fast-food petition.

It’s time to tell an industry skilled in the art of speed what urgency really means.